There is no actual evidence of voter fraud; here's how we know:

It seems the definition of FRAUD is very strict in the minds of most Media people.

One example from this evening..

Sidney Powell ran down a litany of egregious examples of voter fraud in Georgia on Newsmax TV just now, and public masturbater Mark Halperin's first question when she finished was, "Could you give a clear example of voter fraud?"

Source: twitter.com...

Thank goodness our Supreme Court justices, and key state legislators, are brighter than your run-of-the-mill media personality!

originally posted by: johnnylaw16
Wow. You have really drank the kool-aid, huh? Just to clarify, Flynn was convicted of lying to the FBI. Not sure where that fits into his job description.

I'm interested in whether you see Flynn was led down a path to where the FBI could say he was lying in some process crime, or do you think he was actually guilty of something. I find it funny that Hillary was never put under oath so she could never be convicted of a process crime.

Personally I feel if the FBI wanted to get you they could, and the very end when nothing really was there they can say process crime!

What is your take on that, as that seems to have been the path for many around 6 degrees of Trump.

originally posted by: carewemust
It seems the definition of FRAUD is very strict in the minds of most Media people.

One example from this evening..

Sidney Powell ran down a litany of egregious examples of voter fraud in Georgia on Newsmax TV just now, and public masturbater Mark Halperin's first question when she finished was, "Could you give a clear example of voter fraud?"

Source: twitter.com...

Thank goodness our Supreme Court justices, and key state legislators, are brighter than your run-of-the-mill media personality!

You are literally proving the point of this thread. Sidney Powell and the like spout off about how ballots were forged and throw out, software was manipulated, and more but they never offer concrete evidence of this actually happening. That is what is going to be needed in order for any lawsuit to be successful and no one has put anything like that forward. You are sorely mistaken if you think that the Supreme Court or state legislators will save you. That is not how these things work.

Btw: Newmax can hardly be considered "mainstream" or a liberal bastion. When they are doubting Powell, that should be a sign to you!

originally posted by: Xtrozero

originally posted by: johnnylaw16
Wow. You have really drank the kool-aid, huh? Just to clarify, Flynn was convicted of lying to the FBI. Not sure where that fits into his job description.

I'm interested in whether you see Flynn was led down a path to where the FBI could say he was lying in some process crime, or do you think he was actually guilty of something. I find it funny that Hillary was never put under oath so she could never be convicted of a process crime.

Personally I feel if the FBI wanted to get you they could, and the very end when nothing really was there they can say process crime!

What is your take on that, as that seems to have been the path for many around 6 degrees of Trump.

No one forced Flynn to lie. It wasn't some trap set by maniacal actors--he straight up lied to the FBI, which is illegal. And for whom else has this been the path??? I'm not sure what you are saying about Hillary being put under oath. Flynn was not put "under oath," he just lied to the FBI. It also would have been illegal for Hillary to lie to the FBI too.

originally posted by: johnnylaw16

originally posted by: DanDanDat
Its unfortunate that you spent time writing that well written argument and dismissed your entire argument your self

Appellate courts, including the Supreme Court, generally do not hear evidence that is not submitted to the trial court. 

I assume you used the word "generally" because it is possible for the Supreme Court to hear evidence that is not submitted to the trial court.

Yes, for accuracy's sake, I included the term "generally" because there are rare instances where the supreme court will hear new evidence but none applies here. An example would be when the Supreme Court has original jurisdiction over a case (such as cases involving Ambassadors, as mentioned in Article III of the Constitution). There is no reason that the Supreme Court would hear new evidence in any of Trump's lawsuits. if you believe this is incorrect, I am always up to hear a different theory.

In this case they may have not had all the proof they needed due to the ASAP nature of the election. They are probably collecting tons of evidence every day. They have to sort it out. So a judge would obviously be derelict in their duties to not hear all the new evidence.

I have to say — I’m enjoying the reality, logic, and facts.

One comment on Hillary. “Intent” or lack of.

originally posted by: johnnylaw16
No one forced Flynn to lie. It wasn't some trap set by maniacal actors--he straight up lied to the FBI, which is illegal. And for whom else has this been the path??? I'm not sure what you are saying about Hillary being put under oath. Flynn was not put "under oath," he just lied to the FBI. It also would have been illegal for Hillary to lie to the FBI too.

Do you believe you can "lie" not really knowing the truth or what the truth they are looking for? Can I go to jail for a long time because the FBI just asked me a question out of the blue and it wasn't 100% correct? Once again it seems we drop down to a process crime, and that really spells totalitarian to me. The interesting part is the agents involved said he didn't lie, but the higher ups said, no he did.

Very thin line that I do not want to be apart of....

a reply to: johnnylaw16

The patience of Job!

a reply to: carewemust

Can you provide a link to that interview please?

originally posted by: Annee
I have to say — I’m enjoying the reality, logic, and facts.

One comment on Hillary. “Intent” or lack of.

Intent is an interesting word...What was Hillary's intent to have a server not attached to her official duties?

Can I just say......
In evidence to your election fraud there are many highly intelligent, highly professional and credible people working on behalf of YOU THE PEOPLE OF AMERICA.
Which includes Republican lawyers (ballot inspectors) whom have witness many elections over decades.. And saw so many discrepancies...
Computer scientific analysists whom also witnessed corruption....They were THERE as inspectors..
Dem AND republican ballot inspectors whom witness unlawful practises at the ballot stations.
Everyday Americans that have bravely stood up to their accounts of what they have witnessed....
And these are incredibly brave men and women of YOUR country.

originally posted by: Doctor Smith

originally posted by: johnnylaw16

originally posted by: DanDanDat
Its unfortunate that you spent time writing that well written argument and dismissed your entire argument your self

Appellate courts, including the Supreme Court, generally do not hear evidence that is not submitted to the trial court. 

I assume you used the word "generally" because it is possible for the Supreme Court to hear evidence that is not submitted to the trial court.

Yes, for accuracy's sake, I included the term "generally" because there are rare instances where the supreme court will hear new evidence but none applies here. An example would be when the Supreme Court has original jurisdiction over a case (such as cases involving Ambassadors, as mentioned in Article III of the Constitution). There is no reason that the Supreme Court would hear new evidence in any of Trump's lawsuits. if you believe this is incorrect, I am always up to hear a different theory.

In this case they may have not had all the proof they needed due to the ASAP nature of the election. They are probably collecting tons of evidence every day. They have to sort it out. So a judge would obviously be derelict in their duties to not hear all the new evidence.

I can't tell if you're joking, but for clarity's sake: No, a judge would not be derelict in refusing to hear new evidence that was not submitted at trial. That is not how these things work. And if they were sorting through evidence each day, we would expect to see that evidence being filed in court. We are not seeing that.

originally posted by: Xtrozero

originally posted by: johnnylaw16
No one forced Flynn to lie. It wasn't some trap set by maniacal actors--he straight up lied to the FBI, which is illegal. And for whom else has this been the path??? I'm not sure what you are saying about Hillary being put under oath. Flynn was not put "under oath," he just lied to the FBI. It also would have been illegal for Hillary to lie to the FBI too.

Do you believe you can "lie" not really knowing the truth or what the truth they are looking for? Can I go to jail for a long time because the FBI just asked me a question out of the blue and it wasn't 100% correct? Once again it seems we drop down to a process crime, and that really spells totalitarian to me. The interesting part is the agents involved said he didn't lie, but the higher ups said, no he did.

Very thin line that I do not want to be apart of....

Flynn did not make a mistake or misspeak; he admitted to affirmatively lying. Here is the link to the court document: www.justice.gov...

Flynn also never served any prison sentence. At most, he was looking at a number of months in prison, no one was talking about "going to jail for a long time."

Please provide a link for your statement that the "agents involved said he didn't lie."

originally posted by: sussy
Can I just say......
In evidence to your election fraud there are many highly intelligent, highly professional and credible people working on behalf of YOU THE PEOPLE OF AMERICA.
Which includes Republican lawyers (ballot inspectors) whom have witness many elections over decades.. And saw so many discrepancies...
Computer scientific analysists whom also witnessed corruption....They were THERE as inspectors..
Dem AND republican ballot inspectors whom witness unlawful practises at the ballot stations.
Everyday Americans that have bravely stood up to their accounts of what they have witnessed....
And these are incredibly brave men and women of YOUR country.

These people that you speak of largely do not exist. Yes, there are poll watchers, but none have submitted meaningful affidavits of voter fraud. If you disagree, provide a link.

originally posted by: Xtrozero

originally posted by: Annee
I have to say — I’m enjoying the reality, logic, and facts.

One comment on Hillary. “Intent” or lack of.

Intent is an interesting word...What was Hillary's intent to have a server not attached to her official duties?

What does this even mean?

originally posted by: Xtrozero

originally posted by: Annee
I have to say — I’m enjoying the reality, logic, and facts.

One comment on Hillary. “Intent” or lack of.

Intent is an interesting word...What was Hillary's intent to have a server not attached to her official duties?

It’s off topic and I’m not going further with it.

Just pointing out “intent” with full knowledge is a Lie.

Lack of “intent” without full knowledge is a mistake/human error (I am not say not responsible).

And I personally do not understand why there isn’t/wasn’t tighter restrictions and mandatory IT security restrictions in place.

a reply to: Annee


Well, didn’t the cyber guy Trump fired have something to do with that?

Pennsylvania Supreme Court Rejects Republican Lawsuit Seeking to Declare Mail-In Voting Unconstitutional

HARRISBURG, Pa. (KDKA/AP) — The Pennsylvania Supreme Court has dismissed the lawsuit from Congressman Mike Kelly and congressional candidate Sean Parnell to declare universal mail-in voting unconstitutional in the state and deny the votes of the majority of Pennsylvanians who voted by mail in the Nov. 3 election.

The state Supreme Court, in a unanimous decision, threw out the three-day-old order, saying the underlying lawsuit was filed months after the law allowed for challenges to Pennsylvania’s expansive year-old mail-in voting law

link

Here we go again. Their grabbing for empty straws.


What are they going to do when Trump puts this scam away like a child discards an old toy?

originally posted by: johnnylaw16

Please provide a link for your statement that the "agents involved said he didn't lie."

He did admit and later it was said he did under duress of threats, so not true?... No, we will go after you son?...who knows...

The basis is he did say he didn't talk to the Russian ambassador, and he did within whatever situation, but it wasn't involved in any crime. They already knew he did, so yes he should have said he did have a short conversation, or he didn't remember...But they already knew there wasn't any intent into anything criminal in the nature in it.

In the end it was the driving force to take him down while knowingly there was nothing there to begin with.

Flynn

Why ask him in the first place, why even investigate if they knew up front nothing was there...lol

originally posted by: Mandroid7
a reply to: johnnylaw16

Which lawsuits have been dismissed?

All of 'em.